Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2015-05/User:Kephir for de-sysop

• Vote starts: 14:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe this user lacks the competence to adequately serve as an administrator. He clearly holds a grudge against a number of editors (User:Purplebackpack89 being chief among them, and User:Dan Polansky to a lesser extent). That grudge manifests itself in the HOUNDing of those users' edits, a form of harassment that gets in the way of their right to edit. He has misused his administrator privileges on a number of occasions; other times he has edited in ways that would have gotten other editors blocked. There are several ways that Kephir's actions are particularly inappropriate:

1. Using his administrator tools against edits with whom he disagree (particularly blocking those editors without giving them talk page access, generally a no-no on most unilateral blocks, but a particular issue with people he disagrees with).
2. Taking excessive administrative actions that have to be undone by other administrators.
3. Having inappropriate rationale he uses for taking admin actions (for example, deleting a talk page edit using an mainspace rationale), or trumped-up (for example, claiming a user was edit-warring with a single edit, deleting good-faith edits as vandalism, or claiming a clearly-labelled non-secure connection alternate account as sockpuppetry).
4. Making excessive and controversial changes to protected and high-profile pages
5. Failure to be responsive to criticisms on talk pages

Here are a number of edits I believe to be inappropriate and/or misuse of tools.

• May 20, 2015 Blocking an editor for six months without talk page access on the slimmest of pretenses
  • The block was undone within five minutes with the rationale "making up imaginary rules to ban people you don't like? seriously?"
• December, 2014 Blocking an editor for a month with no talk page access after quarrelling with that editor
  • When undone an hour later, another admin called it One of the most abusive blocks I've seen on Wiktionary."
• Then blocking that user's non-secure alt acct, which was clearly labelled as such, indefinitely
  • Was undone by another admin
• Edit-warring over collapsing a Beer parlour discussion about himself
• Closing a discussion that he himself was the subject of
• Controversial indef-block without talk page access of an editor with whom he had quarrelled
  • The block was reduced to one month within 24 hours
• Mis-tagging of a Wiktionary-space page that could have had cataclysmic results (diff provided by User:Dan Polansky)
  • Was undone by another admin within a few hours.
• Removal of another editor's comments on a community noticeboard
• Removing another editor's good-faith edits to a community noticeboard
• Removing another editor's talk page edits on a third editor's page
• 06:29, November 28, 2014: Inappropriate deletion rationale
• 10:12, November 28, 2014: Inappropriate deletion rationale
• 14:08, November 18, 2014: Inappropriate deletion rationale
• Inappropriate deletion rationale: Claiming a good-faith edit was vandalism
• Calling another editor a "lying, illiterate troll
• Taking away the whitelist rights of an editor with whom he quarrelled
  • This occurred in violation of a consensus not to remove the rights
  • The rights were restored within two hours.

I also believe the user does not listen to other editors. As noted, a number of inappropriate comments were deletion of talk page threads as vandalism. Other times, he has deleted talk page comments using rationale that are supposed to be only used for entries. If this user considers talk page comments vandalism, it's clear he is not listening to concerns of other editors. This is not appropriate. He has deleted everything one user has posted on his talk since August (usually tagging it as vandalism), while leaving things other users say intact. While deleting comments is technically not a policy violation, it is highly discouraged, particularly since admins are supposed to listen.

• Purplebackpack89 14:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC) Verify that your "E-mail this user" link works, and uncomment this section. -->

1. Support Purplebackpack89 14:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC) 14:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
2. Support and have CodeCat be next. -- Liliana • 14:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
3. Support The granting of admin privileges is, at its core, an act of trust. It means we are giving someone greater power because we trust them to use it wisely. We hold admins to a higher standard for a reason. Tools are meant to help one enforce Wiktionary's policies and protect it from vandalism. They are not meant to help one gain an upper hand in a personal dispute with another user. When admins cross that line, they need to be held accountable. Otherwise the trust we place in admins is meaningless. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
4. Support --Dan Polansky (talk) His recent deletion of posts to his talk page and the entirely inappropriate block of Purplebackpack for 6 months on 20 May 2015 (block log) is part of a long-term pattern, as documented on this vote page. His indef against me from 2014 was clear harassment in gross violation of WT:BLOCK. His open declarations of stances against the principle of consensus (e.g. diff) are inappropriate for an admin. If he needs to edit some module pages, their protection level should be lowered; since CodeCat (an admin) can edit them, they are exposed to untested changes anyway, and their protection to be editable only by admins serves no useful purpose. I opposed his nomination at Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2013-12/User:Kephir for admin, and he turned out to be much worse than I imagined. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

1. Oppose Bad faith nomination. It seems that Purplebackpack has some kind of personal vendetta against Kephir, singling him out and treating everything he does as some kind of personal attack on him. —CodeCat 14:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Daniel 14:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose Just quit pestering him already. And don’t subtract CodeCat’s privileges either. --Romanophile (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
4. Oppose. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 15:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
5. Oppose The only thing that's a major issue is that Kephir really shouldn't be blocking people he's in a dispute with, but otherwise this looks like the regular witch-hunt. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

   I see, so Kephir grossly abuses his admin privileges by blocking people he is in dispute with for rigiculous amounts of time, but otherwise the vote intended to limit that looks like a witch-hunt. Can anyone clarify the logic of the above statement to me, if any? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

   I echo what Dan said. People have talked to Kephir about this in the past and yet he continues to make poor use of his tools. We have a limited number of tools available to us on this project for dealing with this problem. If talking to him doesn't get him to stop and we're not willing to take away his tools, what's going to prevent him from doing this again, to me, Dan or anybody else? Purplebackpack89 21:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

   Personally, I think some of the stuff other admins here have done is far worse, and yet nobody suggests desysopping them, so yeah, that makes this a witch-hunt. And I wish you guys would stop pretending that you're innocent. PBP, you've been blocked by five different admins by my count, and Dan, it seems you've been blocked by six. These are for disruptive edits and other documented offences going back years, and Dan has also fallen afoul of the admins on Czech Wiktionary. So it seems that you both have a history of getting yourselves blocked, but instead want to remove Kephir's rights by making him seem like a rogue sysop who's out to get you. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

   You've left a lot of questions unanswered, User:Metaknowledge. If Kephir isn't out to get me, why do his blocks always occur after he and I interact? Also, if I'm such a bad editor, why is it that I have never been blocked for a duration of longer than 3 days? And why has Kephir been the only person since last June to block me? If Kephir's blocks are appropriate, why are they undone within a few hours? What made them appropriate in the first place? Since you're a mop, why didn't you block me or Dan? What about the other stuff Kephir has done other than bad blocks? And why do other editors' misdeeds matter at all to this discussion? Just because they've done wrong things doesn't mean Kephir gets a free pass. Purplebackpack89 23:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

   (responding to Metaknowledge post) It would be fair to say that, before the Kephir block, there were four blocks against me, of which one was legitimate, the Ruakh's one, for a mistake my AWB regex made when I was using AWB. Three of the four blocks were very short; the long one lasted week and its summary included "Violating WT:AGF+WT:BLOCK", which is an obvious nonsense since I am not an admin, have no blocking tools and thus cannot violate WT:BLOCK; this -sche block was questioned by multiple editors. Kephir set the precedent for ridiculous vendetta blocks that helped set the tone for further blocks that followed. His action has a lasting impact; one editor in the Czech Wiktionary keeps on repeating that I was indef blocked in the English Wiktionary, not caring about the details. Obviously, this is very personal to me. I feel grossly abused by that indef block, and I wish the abuser to have the sysop tools removed as the least measure; if someone proposed banning Kephir from this wiki, I would not oppose. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

6. Oppose --Vahag (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
7. Oppose This isn't the auto-opposition to anything that Purple does; I really think Kephir mostly makes good decisions, and it would be a loss to the project to "de-sysop" him. Equinox ◑ 23:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

   The thing is is that he's made a number of ridiculously poor decisions as far as I and Dan are concerned. What's going to prevent him from making more, if you don't want either the de-sysop or the interaction ban? Purplebackpack89 23:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

   Hopefully the fact that this vote has been raised at all, and some users are supporting it, will raise a red flag...? I still hope it won't pass. Equinox ◑ 23:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

8. Oppose de-sysopping, but I'd support an interaction ban of the kind proposed by bd2412 in his post in #Abstain (timestamped: 20:27, 20 May 2015). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

   @I.S.M.E.T.A., thanks - I have proposed this solution at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/May#Proposed six month interaction ban between User:Purplebackpack89 and User:Kephir. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

9. Oppose Looking at the actions that Purplebackpack89 links to, I feel that many of them are largely or entirely justified; and most of the rest are very understandable, at least. —Ruakh_TALK 06:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

   @Ruakh: Let's consider the blocks at User:Purplebackpackonthetrail: are they justified or are they understandable? To me, they appear to be neither. They seem to be pure harassment, with false blocking rationale "Abusing multiple accounts". --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

   I believe that PBP is a troll here, and Purplebackpackonthetrail (talk • contribs) is a prime example of that. (Did you notice that its user-page is carefully crafted to pretend that this is Wikipedia? That is not an isolated thing; rather, PBP has a long history of linking to Wikipedia policy pages, accusing other editors of violating Wikipedia policies, referring to Wiktionary pages by the names of their Wikipedia analogues, and so on. (S)he has certainly observed that Wiktionarians find this annoying — we've made no secret of it — but (s)he declines to care.) And the trolling has not been harmless. So, frankly, I find harassment of PBP to be pretty understandable, as long as it's not taken to extremes. (But unfortunately, the harassment does not seem to have been effective, since PBP is still here, and (naturally) still trolling.) —Ruakh_TALK 07:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

   If he bothers you lot so much—and I’m quite sure that he does—why not get rid of him? His workload is usually small anyway. --Romanophile (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

   But unfortunately, the harassment does not seem to have been effective - What's next? Death threats? Murder? -- Liliana • 15:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

   I'm guessing you missed the part, or are pretending to have missed the part, where I said "as long as it's not taken to extremes"? (I mean, I suppose there's another possible explanation for your comment, namely that you don't consider death threats and murder to be extreme, or that you don't think I do; but I think that one is too far-fetched to be taken seriously.) —Ruakh_TALK 06:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

   @Ruakh The reason my alt account uses a Wikipedia template is that no Wiktionary template exists for that purpose. As for the trolling claim,

   a) I'm pretty clearly not a troll.

   b) It's not polite to call people trolls.

   c) It's not acceptable to harass other editors, even trolls.

   d) Kephir has clearly taken things "to extremes"

   As for the claim that I care nothing for Wiktionary policy and only for Wikipedia policy; if you look at my edits over the last 6-9 months, you'll find virtually all of them compliant with Wiktionary policy. But I do believe that it would be beneficial for Wiktionary's policies to be closer to Wikipedia's. There's nothing inherently wrong with that belief. And you act like I take that position solely to piss off other editors; I take it because I believe the differences to be confusing, and the rationales for the differences to be weak. You shouldn't block somebody on belief. And you shouldn't call me a troll. Purplebackpack89 16:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

   @Ruakh: Perhaps you need to elaborate which you think are largely and entirely justified, because I'm not seeing any. What's the justification in blocking Dan or I without talk page access, especially when done unilaterally and because of comments directed at the talk page? Those blocks were clearly over-the-line; why do you think they were undone within 24 hours? What's the justification in being wholly uncooperative on your talk page for almost a year; tagging every comment as vandalism? Admins need to be able to be communicated with? And what's the justification in reverting comments made on a third user's talk page (i.e. not Kephir's; not Dan's or mine)? There's no reason whatsoever for doing that, as the comments clearly weren't vandalism. Kephir has made no secret that one of his primary goals here is to get me and Dan indeffed, and he's been bending and breaking rules left and right to try and make that a reality. Since his bending and breaking of rules have included misusing his tools, so he should forfeit them. Purplebackpack89 14:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

   Not to mention that you left Wiktionary because of CodeCat's complete ignorance of basic rules of interaction. Why is it a breach of rules in that case, but perfectly okay when Purplebackpack89 is involved? Double standards much? -- Liliana • 16:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

   I . . . what? What are you referring to? I'm pretty sure I've never voted to de-sysop CodeCat? —Ruakh_TALK 07:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

   You were clearly upset that CodeCat was harassing you. Is it not acceptable for me and Dan to be upset that Kephir is harassing us? And how would you have reacted if an admin tagged all comments you made on their page as vandalism, then slapped a block with no talk page access on you? Purplebackpack89 16:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

   I could never replace Ruakh, but I’d still like to add this: Even if I didn’t respect his boundaries, I would understand that I am causing him annoyance by continually pestering him, since he has already made his sentiments clear. If anything, that constitutes harassment. This vote is only going to increase animosity, not just between you two but also between you and the community. If I were you, I’d try to stay out of the site politics for a while (but I wouldn’t be surprised if you ignored my suggestion). --Romanophile (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

10. Oppose DCDuring TALK 16:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

1. Abstain Kephir is a valuable admin and taking away his ability to edit protected pages will hurt Wiktionary. However, although I sympathized at first with his intolerance of a particular editor (who should not have been the one to create this vote), deleting comments and issuing blocks for starting discussions is immature and unacceptable behavior for an admin. --WikiTiki89 15:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
2. Abstain, and alternately propose an interaction ban between them. bd2412 T 20:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
3. Abstain. From glancing through the history I'm bound to agree that Kephir's behaviour is not acceptable. Nevertheless votes of this kind are not very helpful either except when the nominator is a disinterested party, which is clearly not the case here. Ƿidsiþ 12:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
4. Abstain. This vote has no legitimacy as it was started prematurely and by a nondisinterested party. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

   I see no problem with a party repeatedly abused by Kephir starting this vote. If someone robs my house, and I file a complaint, I don't expect the police to tell me off as a "nondisinterested party". You should have complained to Kephir when he was the "nondisinterested" party issuing grossly unjust blocks. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

   I'd also contest "prematurely". This wasn't some whim vote. It was months in the making and done only after other methods of redress had failed. Purplebackpack89 18:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

5. Abstain. I am unimpressed with the behavior of several different parties in this issue. This line of discussion, however, does not seem fruitful. —JohnC5 22:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• I would suggest that this proposal is counterproductive, in that a voting page is hardly ever a good place to undertake dispute resolution. We don't have an arbitration committee, but perhaps an ad hoc group could be formed for the purposes of looking into the dispute between Kephir and Purplebackpack89 and then proposing an informed and impartial resolution to the community. - TheDaveRoss 15:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  There is no evidence to support the above claims, AFAIK. An admin who frivolously deletes posts from his talk page should not even be taken to a dispute resolution; they should be desysopped on sight. This vote is the best mechanism that we have, so far as I know. I do not see what makes this vote "counterproductive", meaning producing the opposite of its intended effect; do you suggest that, as a result of this vote, Kephir behavior gets even worse? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  That is exactly what I am saying. The evidence is in all other similar votes which I can recall, this isn't the first instance where a request for de-sysop has been made due to claims of harassment. I have been out of Wiktionary politics for too long to dredge up the specifics, but I am sure Connel had a similar vote against him at least once, possibly even SemperBlotto, although that might not have gotten to a vote. I say these are counterproductive because there is no chance of positive outcome. One possible outcome is that the vote passes. In that case Kephir will not be able to delete pages or block people, which you think is a win. It doesn't resolve the interpersonal dispute, and very likely it will just lead to more acrimony between those who already think Kephir is misbehaving and those who think this is a witch hunt. If the vote fails (which they always have) then those who support the vote are likely to add those who oppose to the list of people they think are out to get them. This vote is divisive, and it is not a good forum for building consensus or resolution. You may be right that Kephir shouldn't be an admin, they may be misusing the tools in a way which is deleterious to the project. You may also be wrong. I don't think a popular vote is a practical method of arriving at a decision in these sorts of matters. - TheDaveRoss 12:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  I know of Wiktionary:Votes/2008-02/Reprimand of User:Connel MacKenzie, and, from what I can see, the reprimand vote suggesting a block for one day, although it did not pass, achieved what it intended to achieve: reduce certain behavior on the part of Connel. It did so at a cost of losing Connel, which is to be admitted. Thus, as for efficacy, this is one piece of evidence that votes can limit undesirable behaviors, especially if they are full of discussion as the reprimand vote was. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  User:TheDaveRoss, This goes back to the question, "what are you going to do to stop Kephir's behavior?" Even if the vote fails, it's possible that a majority of people will still find his actions unacceptable. If this is a bad move, what is the better move to stop Kephir making bad blocks and deleting comments? Purplebackpack89 13:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

What am I going to do? Nothing. I don't have a dog in this hunt, I am merely suggesting that this course of action is not of use. I also proposed what I think would be a better course of action, that is some form of arbitration. The results of arbitration are less subject to popularity and personal bias, assuming the arbitrators are well chosen. - TheDaveRoss 18:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• People have tried talking to Kephir, and he hasn't listened. You can try it again if you want, but it won't do any good. Purplebackpack89 21:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  @Purplebackpack89 If you leave Kephir alone, he will leave you alone. It's always you that starts these incidents by posting on multiple talk pages as soon as you don't like something. You are not an admin (and for good reason) and 99% of the times that you started a dispute with an admin, they were right and you were wrong. When someone reverts you, just take the message and stop complaining. --WikiTiki89 15:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  @Wikitiki89 "Complaining" is too loaded a word; a better word would be "commenting". Commenting on Kephir's talk page, or on any other talk page or Wiktionary-space page, does no harm, and it is still ridiculous for Kephir (or anybody else) to block me (or anybody else) for it. Neither I nor anybody else should be bullied by Kephir into not commenting just because he throws around bullshit blocks on the slimmest of pretences. The problem is not my comments, the problem here is Kephir's bullshit blocks. My commenting on Kephir's page doesn't prevent his editing of knickerbocker glory or cheese curl or any other pages; his bullshit blocks do. Purplebackpack89 16:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  I was actually referring to these sorts of complaints that you post on as many talk pages as you can think of. --WikiTiki89 17:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  What is a comment in your mind might be continued harassment to Kephir's. You can't assume that your point of view of this situation is the only valid one. That's why this vote isn't getting the support you might have expected; other editors are seeing perspectives that you don't. From Kephir's point of view, a block for ongoing harassment might be perfectly reasonable, even if you don't see it that way. —CodeCat 16:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  It's not reasonable, CodeCat. Full stop. Kephir himself shouldn't have done the block. Especially since there shouldn't be a block. I don't think you're considering the inverse of the situation. If you consider my comments to be harassment (which they clearly aren't, FWIW), what's to stop any editor from unilaterallly declaring any other editor's comments on his page harassment? And then, if he's an admin, blocking that person? Purplebackpack89 16:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  Nothing is stopping any editor from doing anything the software allows them to. Only consensus among editors can decide if those actions are appropriate or not, and what to do if they aren't. You haven't actually sought out such a consensus at all; what you've done is unilaterally decide that Kephir must be in the wrong and you must be right, and that he must therefore be desysopped without question. And you see the result: there is no consensus for your proposed action. But you skipped the first step here: finding out whether his actions were appropriate or not by consensus, and only then should you have considered possible measures such as a vote. Votes don't make consensus, they only codify it. —CodeCat 16:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  If you think this is a unilateral process, @CodeCat, then you are much mistaken. I have been exploring this for months, and not alone. Dan has been consulted on it for awhile, and I've literally have people pop out of the woodwork and beg me to start this vote. As for putting the cart before the horse, a) if Kephir was right to block me, he wouldn't have been undone so quickly, and b) if I'd started a BP thread about it, you and others would have ignored it and accused me of drama-mongering. Purplebackpack89 17:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  Re: "Votes don't make consensus, they only codify it.": Not really. Consensus (general agreement) is a factual state of affairs; votes help detect its presence. There is no better and more reliable method for the detection of consensus than votes. There was no need to take this to Beer parlour; the misbehavior of Kephir was generally known, and multiple people raised their objections to it at User_talk:Kephir#PB.3Cs.3E.26_J.3C.2Fs.3EP89_5304 (a discussion from December 2014). This vote will help clarify how many people confirm that Kephir's behavior is objectionable, and how much. Those who vote support probably see it as rather severe; those who abstain probably acknowledge that there is some problem but not all that serious one. We would never know what editors think about the matter for so many editors if it were not for the vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• The vote fails 4-10-5 and User:Kephir remains a sysop. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)